eth_getTransactionReceipt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a receipt but does not clarify what a receipt entails (e.g., success status, gas used, logs), whether it's read-only, or any rate limits or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero waste, clearly stating the tool's function without unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a transaction receipt includes (e.g., success indicators, gas details) or potential errors, which are crucial for a tool in a complex domain like blockchain transactions. More context is needed for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'txHash' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the hash is used to fetch the receipt, aligning with the baseline score when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and resource ('receipt of a transaction'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eth_getTransactionByHash', which might retrieve different transaction details, leaving room for slight ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'eth_getTransactionByHash' for raw transaction data or other siblings for different blockchain queries. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.